news details |
|
|
| Defeating terrorism | | Aim at the right targets | |
by T.P. Sreenivasan
Nostradamus’ prophecy that “two metal birds would crash into two tall statues and the world will end soon after” appeared to have come true on September 11, 2001. The world as we knew it certainly ended on that day. But five years later, the new world seems to have settled into a routine with many of the old problems, together with many new ones that the change engendered. On the fifth anniversary of 9/11, the poignancy was evident on the faces of the dear ones of the victims, but for others, the ceremonies were just a reminder of the grave dangers that lurked everywhere. Fear, rather than agony, was the prevalent mood at ground zero.
In the aftermath of the horror of 9/11, it appeared as though terrorism, by any name or definition, would be universally condemned and combated. The definition of terrorism that had eluded the international community was not an issue anymore and there was virtual agreement that there were no “good terrorists” in the world. Following the unanimous adoption of a resolution by the UN Security Council, there was a virtual race to sign international conventions, which were named as contributing to the fight against terrorism.
An Indian draft for a comprehensive convention against terrorism, which was gathering dust at the UN, came up for detailed consideration. But when the fifth anniversary of 9/11 was observed, the world is back to square one on the issue of definition of terrorism. Much as the world has changed after 9/11, much remains unchanged, even on the single issue that marked the change. The war on terror has not eliminated terrorism; it has only made the world a more dangerous place.
The definition issue surfaced again in all its complexity when the Russians recently observed the anniversary of the Beslan tragedy, in which more than 150 children were murdered in cold blood. By any definition, Beslan was a terrorist act, which should be condemned universally. But questions were asked whether it was not part of a freedom struggle, which was being put down by the Russians with an iron hand. Some tears were shed even for the perpetrators of the attack.
Another extreme view was that ordinary men turned into terrorists because of injustice in society. The war in Iraq is generally referred to as a fight against terror, when it is nothing but insurgency against the occupation forces. Strangest of all, Pakistan’s complicity in terrorism is being condoned as assistance to a liberation struggle under an outdated definition. Without a clear, universally accepted definition of terrorism, the fight against terrorism will aim at the wrong targets and, even more regrettably, let some terrorists off the hook.
The nearest that the international community came to a definition was when a UN panel suggested that terrorism is “any act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.” The best dictionary definition is that it is the “systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious or ideological change.”
But neither of these is complete, nor do they give the kind of exceptions that many countries seem to seek. Many terrorists are silent about the changes they are seeking and they make no demands before making the supreme sacrifice. Many of them adopt other nomenclatures such as separatists, freedom fighters, liberators, revolutionaries, militants, rebels, jehadis, mujahiddin etc to claim respectability. This bewildering array of fighters creates a smokescreen for terrorists.
If we cannot define terrorism, we should at least know who are not terrorists. Criminals should clearly be outside the purview of terrorism. If they are treated as terrorists, they will be denied the justice that they deserve on account of the circumstances that forced them to commit crimes.
Today, with colonialism behind us and a road map for peaceful solution of other issues ahead of us, no act of terrorism should be condoned in the name of “root causes”. No cause, however genuine, should destroy the lives of innocent people. Nor should terrorists be treated leniently. Humanitarian, rather than human rights considerations should prevail. Pity about conditions in Guantanamo should not cloud our view of the crimes that terrorists have committed.
We do not have to go as far as thirty years into the future as the historian, Niall Ferguson, has done, to see the dangers of the war on terrorism being extended to cover war for regime change, particularly if the regime in question had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or other terrorist outfits. Ferguson forecasts that there will be no Iraq for the US to withdraw from; only three territories at loggerheads with each other. Setting off a civil war and destabilizing a whole region is not the desirable result of the war on terror. Democracy cannot be imposed through the barrel of a gun.
Fear is also on the faces of millions of people who come to the United States, as they fear terrorism as much as the consequences of suspicion by paranoid fellow passengers or security authorities, not to speak of the humiliation of intrusive searches and rude behaviour. The loss of a friendly image cannot but have grave consequences for the standing of America in the world. No serious effort has been made to educate the public to distinguish between terrorists and tourists.
The immigrants, particularly the Sikhs, who appear to locals like a menacing Osama Bin Laden, suffer hate crimes on account of the prejudices of the public. Muslims have become victims of government policies, according to a recent Harvard study. A country of opportunities should not become a country of oppression of its own people, regardless of their origins.
Anniversaries should serve to take stock of what the world has done to prevent the terrorist attacks not only on New York, Washington, London and Madrid, but also on Moscow, Srinagar and Mumbai. Terrorism knows no national boundaries and no nation should be complacent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
